107 Loophole

[AnzacJack]

The nature of the camera has nothing to do with it. If the purpose of the flight is for commercial gain, then its a commercial flight.
If its pulling a banner to advertise a business, its commercial even without a camera
No loophole

 

[brett8883]

Another loophole would be that commercial flights are stated to only count if the footage is shot from the drone. But the FAA never said anything about external cameras, nor should they. Not to mention they specifically define what a "recreational flight" is, only that is has to be non-commercial, which would be build-in cameras for the drone

I’m from the US and a part 107 pilot. Unfortunately that isn’t going to work.

To fly under recreation rules, and therefore qualify for an exemption from 107 rules, the law says, “[T]he Aircraft [must be] Flown Strictly for Recreational Purposes.” Therefore the purpose of the flight is the determining factor on if a flight is recreational or not.

I am aware the FAA has used the term “commercial” to describe part 107 flights in the past and therefore it’s easy to see how the incorrect inference that recreational flights are defined as “non-commercial” gets made. However, it’s important to note that the actual law uses neither the term “commercial” or “non-commercial,” the law only uses the “Strictly for Recreational Purposes” to determine if the purpose of the flight qualifies for the recreational exemption.

 

[Aerophile]

"Loophole" is a word that criminals use to describe their activities.

 

[squeegee]

I dont have any bearing on what FAA say, but i am capable of understanding what they say.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it looks to me like you are saying the loophole is that if you use a externally mounted camera, you are not flying commercially but if its a internally mounted camera then you would be flying comercially, given the same situtaion of using either camera for profit.
If thats not what you are saying, then please elaborate.
Maybe us Australians dont understand american. Maybe someone like @BigAl07 could help as i think he can speak american and your local expert

Given that the FAA doesn't clearly state on their site what constitutes commercial and recreational flights in any examples, shows that its vague and left to user interpretation on a case by case basis. Aka subjective. And yes it is an American issue. The only point of reference that can be found is this What Does the FAA Consider as Commercial Drone Use? - Pilot Institute.
Everything else is just heresay unless it comes from the horses mouth

 

[squeegee]

I’m from the US and a part 107 pilot. Unfortunately that isn’t going to work.

To fly under recreation rules, and therefore qualify for an exemption from 107 rules, the law says, “[T]he Aircraft [must be] Flown Strictly for Recreational Purposes.” Therefore the purpose of the flight is the determining factor on if a flight is recreational or not.

I am aware the FAA has used the term “commercial” to describe part 107 flights in the past and therefore it’s easy to see how the incorrect inference that recreational flights are defined as “non-commercial” gets made. However, it’s important to note that the actual law uses neither the term “commercial” or “non-commercial,” the law only uses the “Strictly for Recreational Purposes” to determine if the purpose of the flight qualifies for the recreational exemption.

Yes I'm well aware of what the faa says; my main point is the loopholes around it. Anyone in this day and age can easily get around it with a bit of patreon and uploading free on youtube or a drone video sharing platform. Not to mention the vagueness of the FAA in general on their "commercial" and "recreational" terms. I'm saying without remote id, it's difficult to enforce rules on a kid randomly flying in an empty parking lot, and even with remote id, proving something vague requires solid evidence of intent (as lying exists), which is once again up to the faa's discretion, without telling everyone what it is on their site, and sketchy in and of itself. And without a solid definition, loopholes will exist

 

[Ty Pilot]

Given that the FAA doesn't clearly state on their site what constitutes commercial and recreational flights in any examples, shows that its vague and left to user interpretation on a case by case basis.

100% wrong. Below is a screen shot right off the FAA's Website, www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers

Please note the wording of the FAA in that: they clearly explain that the default regulation for drones under 55 pounds in the US is - part 107, aka - Commercial. Notice they say 'When in Doubt - fly under 107' - If anyone thinks there are 'Loopholes' - they are in 'Doubt'

Also, they clearly give a number of examples of activities that are not recreational (therefore commercial), and even spell out that "Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation"

Recreational is flight; only and specifically for fun - Everything else is commercial requiring a 107.

 

[FLDave]

Where to you find the word "commercial" in the 107 or recreational regulations?

 

[mobilehomer]

Whether or not a camera is involved has zero to do with Part 107. For instance - a non-camera drone could be used to drop a fishing line far from shore.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Where to you find the word "commercial" in the 107 or recreational regulations?

It's not in the 'regulations' but it is a term used in these conversations, you'll note in my response I said: AKA - Also Known As.

Please note the wording of the FAA in that: they clearly explain that the default regulation for drones under 55 pounds in the US is - part 107, aka - Commercial.

The FAA does use the term on the very page I linked in the first paragraph it says (and I quote):

"Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not what determines if the flight is recreational or commercial."

 

[squeegee]

100% wrong. Below is a screen shot right off the FAA's Website, www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers

Please note the wording of the FAA in that: they clearly explain that the default regulation for drones under 55 pounds in the US is - part 107, aka - Commercial. Notice they say 'When in Doubt - fly under 107' - If anyone thinks there are 'Loopholes' - they are in 'Doubt'

Also, they clearly give a number of examples of activities that are not recreational (therefore commercial), and even spell out that "Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation"

Recreational is flight; only and specifically for fun - Everything else is commercial requiring a 107.



View attachment 153564

100% Wrong. How and in what way in those examples? We all know what the faa says, but they don't list how the drone specifically contributes to the term. They just say photo or video, when lots of things can do that

 

[Ty Pilot]

How and in what way in those examples? We all know what the faa says, but they don't list how the drone specifically contributes to the term. They just say photo or video, when lots of things can do that

I figured that is what you would do.

I specifically quoted a part of your post where you made a statement that I proved is wrong, no where in your statement that I quoted did you mention "how the drone specifically contributes to the term"

The fact is, these threads get started and guys like you that have never really fully understood the regulations, nor read through the Advisory Circulars make false accusations that only perpetuate the confusion.

My post was simply showing precisely what the FAA says on it's own website in response to your suggestion that they don't do so.

The FAA regulations are clear. There are No Loopholes.

 

[Ty Pilot]

And a "premium pilot" clearly can't understand the intent behind a comment. You're the one trying to address me. In order to answer my concerns, you have to understand what exactly I'm talking about. I worded it wrong, but thanks to your retort, I managed to fix my intention. It's called a conversation. And if it's too much for your big ego to handle, maybe you should go touch grass. My point still stands

I addressed your comment because your suggestion that the FAA website is unclear about drone regulations was false. there is no ego in it for me.

These threads are fueled by inaccurate, false and misleading comments like you made. It is a conversation thus I replied to it.

 

[AnzacJack]

8800.3100 DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS.
"Commercial operations" means any operation of an aircraft for compensation or hire, or any services performed incidental to the operation of any aircraft for which a fee is charged or compensation received

Statutory Authority: MS s 360.015; 360.018; 360.03; 360.90 History: 30 SR 215
Published Electronically: October 2, 2007

 

[AnzacJack]

Also a useful link

https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/user_identification_tool

 

[lookout]

"Loophole" is a word that criminals use to describe their activities.

I thought a loophole was a secret something that the lawmakers left in there for themselves. Maybe it also refers to a noose.

 

[Rich QR]

8800.3100 DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS.
"Commercial operations" means any operation of an aircraft for compensation or hire, or any services performed incidental to the operation of any aircraft for which a fee is charged or compensation received

Statutory Authority: MS s 360.015; 360.018; 360.03; 360.90 History: 30 SR 215
Published Electronically: October 2, 2007

I had to look that up. It's a definition from Minnesota State law.

It is entirely irrelevant to the subject of this thread. The word "commercial" does not appear anywhere in Part 107 nor in section 44809, so it doesn't matter how "commercial" is defined. But a definition from Minnesota State law would only be applicable to Minnesota State law.

For determining if a drone operation falls under Part 107 or 44809, the answer is in those parts. If it is "strictly recreational" and meets the other limitations of 44809, it may be conducted under 44809. Otherwise, it falls under Part 107.

The phrase "strictly recreational" isn't further defined in the law, so it has the conventional definition, and determining whether a particular flight is "strictly recreational" would ultimately be up to the courts.